Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 372: Line 372:


== Why is article expansion considered an improvement as far as DYK is concerned? ==
== Why is article expansion considered an improvement as far as DYK is concerned? ==
{{hat|1=Trolling as usual; no intent to say anything constructive, just an attempt to waste people's time. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 00:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}}

My question is prompted by having watched for the umpteenth time the 1946 film version of [[Great Expectations (1946 film)|Great Expectations]], for which the plot section in the Wikipedia article had been tagged since December 2009 as being too long and/or detailed. I edited it to fit the 3–4 paragraph guideline for that type of article, so the disfiguring tag could reasonably be removed. But it raised the question in my mind; for older articles especially it may well be the case that they are best improved by ''reducing'' their size, not by increasing it. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
My question is prompted by having watched for the umpteenth time the 1946 film version of [[Great Expectations (1946 film)|Great Expectations]], for which the plot section in the Wikipedia article had been tagged since December 2009 as being too long and/or detailed. I edited it to fit the 3–4 paragraph guideline for that type of article, so the disfiguring tag could reasonably be removed. But it raised the question in my mind; for older articles especially it may well be the case that they are best improved by ''reducing'' their size, not by increasing it. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Line 382: Line 382:


::::You may waffle as much as you like, but it's very clear that you're in denial. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::You may waffle as much as you like, but it's very clear that you're in denial. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

Revision as of 00:17, 4 September 2011

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut



This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. However, proposals for changing how Did You Know works are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Lontar Project and DYK

As noted on my talk page, I have been chosen by Wikimedia Indonesia to help with collaboration between Wikimedia and the Lontar Foundation (which focuses on Indonesian culture and literature). One of the things this entitles is helping the Lontar Foundation staff learn to write for the English-language Wikipedia, including but not limited to copyright issues, English-Wiki MOS, language, and referencing standards (all of which are stricter here than on the Indonesian Wikipedia). If I were to give an assignment for them to get an article promoted in DYK, are there any things I should do beforehand? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Crisco, and congrats to the foundation for getting such a helpful, competent person to help them. Maybe some of Wikipedia's help-pages for teachers with classes editing Wikipedia would be relevant to what you want? It would be helpful if you would look over new articles to exert some quality control before they get nominated. You could catch basic errors before DYK reviewers tackle them and likely prevent some cranky reviews hurting feelings among the novices. Sharktopus talk 18:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sharktopus, I'll take a look at the help pages. I will also discuss this with my go-between at WMF Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was wondering if DYK would have any specific terms / conditions, considering how 90% of the psychology projects didn't pass last month. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AMBASSADOR will have some very helpful basic-editing materials for you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I have just removed Tadeusz Szeligowski from queue, can someone work out how to re-add it to T:TDYK? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T:TDYK#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about Americanism and colloquialism

This recent addition gives me pause: DYK "... that "Little Luke"'s Ponzi scheme may lead to the "death penalty" for Miami?"

  1. Little Luke is a nickname for Nevin Shapiro, and not a widely known nickname at that
  2. "Death penalty" is a colloquialism and not the formal name of the NCAA sanctions
  3. "Miami" should be University of Miami, and not the city.
  4. The combination of all these together makes for a really puzzling headline for not just those outside the US, but for folks who don't follow American college sports.

As someone who has edited the Univ of Miami scandal page a lot, and had to help normalize that article to make it readable, I fear this DYK item is just too insider. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I follow CFB and I have to say that even I didn't know what this hook was talking about at first read. That is not necessarily a bad thing but this has the feel more of an April Fool's Day hook which I doubt anyone would want to save this for. I would recommend axing the nickname and writing out the University of Miami. It would be good to leave in the "death penalty" line, provided it is linked to an appropriate article that explains the term, as a catchy angle. AgneCheese/Wine 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings are that I am a little uneasy with this hook being on the mainpage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American, and I don't follow college sports at all (except to know when I need to avoid certain parts of town because of the traffic). I would have no clue what that hook is talking about. LadyofShalott 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated that. I mentioned in my nomination that I though the hook was a little rough, but could be polished into something pretty interesting, but the reviewer liked the hook as it was, so that's the way it went. FYI, all the terms were linked appropriately: "Little Luke" to Nevin Shapiro, Ponzi scheme to Ponzi scheme, "death penalty" to death penalty (NCAA) (not the official name, but the most-widely used term for it), and Miami to 2011 University of Miami athletics scandal. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up a DYK nomination

I created the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Bomb Pop, but it says 5x expanded by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]). I tried fixing it, but I am unable to. I will add it to the DYK nominations page when this issue is fixed. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the nomination's talk page explaining what went wrong. For future reference, when these sort of errors happen the easiest way to fix them is just to click "Back" on your browser, fill out the template again (most of these errors happen because something was left blank in the template) and save again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so no-one uploads...

I have asked the next four images in the four prep areas be protected there. They are pretty prompt so should be done pretty quickly. If someone can do preps to queue. I feel a bit COI uploading a prep area with my own hook in it..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - all on commons are protected there now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

Would it be possible for someone to promote prep 3 first? It doesn't seem to have shuffled to the front, and it has a hook meant for the 30th. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, which hook is meant for August 30? --Orlady (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Ballad of Salah hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Hägglund

Interesting article, but I thought DYK was trying to raise the bar and makes its articles better. So, I have to ask, how did this one make DYK, much less the lead? The refs aren't remotely formatted properly. What's up? PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reference formatting styles, and this one is acceptable. Yes, the article is too short for a lead, IMO, but the hook is well above average, +young female image ..  :). Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The format is not acceptable, no retrieve dates, no publisher, no language parameter, etc. PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them have the work; MS filled in another, online ref. Some reviewers don't consider access dates a valid reason to hold a nomination back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] DYK does not require perfect references, and most definitely does not insist on one particular style. The only firm requirement related to citation format is "no bare URLs." --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General question: I thought accessdate is needed only if there is no real date/year available? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Gbooks they aren't, but for a web-based reference they are preferable. They allow us to use something like this to recover the source in question. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the page goes down, I mean. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I see, they do "go down". Two websites I frequently use changed design, Deutscher Musikrat and mica (music information center austria), I keep repairing broken links there. - And yes, I add publisher and language (below). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the dates, it should have publisher and language if not English too.PumpkinSky talk 12:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The work in many cases would qualify. If, for example, I were to quote Kompas, I wouldn't want to have to write {{cite news|url=http://www.kompas.com/foo|title=Foo|trans_title=English foo|language=Indonesian|work=Kompas|publisher=Kompas Gramedia Group|date=1 January 2001|accessdate=29 August 2011}} Having Kompas Gramedia group in this case would seem overdone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but certain minimal info should be present and this article's refs don't meet that, so if DYK wants to continue to be known in this manner, you guys have at it.PumpkinSky talk 14:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a problem. Even before this complaint was raised, it looks like the references all at least had "work" and a date listed. Sure, it's not the full bibliographic citation (also having the author would be preferable), but it's enough to find the reference. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight problem with the hook, as other sources contradict the claim that Hagglund was first in the world. We do not have an article for her yet, but Barbara Mandell was a news reader on ITN from 1955 to early 1956: [1]. Cmprince (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least presently, the article doesn't say anything about "first in the world", just about "first in Sweden." Either the info should be added back into the article (if it can be verified) or the hook should be removed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection requested at Commons

FYI to admins: I've asked for protection for the 4 images currently in the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queues 5,6

A contemporary setting is a setting, not a genre: suggest that despite the fact that the majority of submitted films are set in contemporary times, the Academy Award for Best Costume Design has only been awarded to films with such a setting twice since 1967? Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Socha (Queue 6). Is there any reason for recording the county of birth of this actor? It is not usual practice in UK reporting outside of regional papers from the county in question. There is no suggestion in the article that he ever performed in the county other than in school. If we are reporting the filming of his scenes, it is probably superfluous to define him as an actor as well. If he was not responsible for all seven injuries, is it true to say that he injured himself, rather than that he was injured? Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erementia (Q6). There is no suggestion at MOS:DATE that the word century should be capitalised in such contexts. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected all. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful thanks to Kevin McE for changes and suggestions that improved many hooks in our current preps and queues. I am especially grateful because Hurricane Irene, despite having disappointed so many predictions, knocked out power and quite a bit more to the small summer town where I was visiting. Home again at last, so glad to be clean and warm and dry and looking at a big computer in a lit room. Sharktopus talk 02:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

if ive reviewed 2 noms can i save one credit for my next nom? or at least per a pre-set deadline?Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, whenever you nominate an article you should review an article at that time. It's not very difficult, it shouldn't be a big deal. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a big deal to do a review, but I think the question was, is there a rule at DYK about when to do a review. I often do reviews when I have time and then "use" them when I finally get enough time to make a DYK. I have done more reviews "on spec" than I ever cashed in, so DYK is the better for letting people do that. Sharktopus talk 01:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I just keep reviewing and use my most recent review for my nomination. By my count there must be 50 reviews that I've never used, and probably won't. I know some people keep reviews for months, and they have never had people complain. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx.
I suppose for the regulars know one is going to query a review. Im currently a semi-reg here but i think ill be upping the ante soon.Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading prep areas to queues

Hi all, I'd do this myself but have a hook in prep area 3 - can another admin please upload? I'll drop a note at WP:AN too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins: 5 empty queues, 4 full preps ...

... and a partridge in a pear tree to the kind admin who mops preps into queues! Sharktopus talk 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now where's my partridge? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loading preps and checking some older hook/articles

I've loaded up prep 3 and a bit of prep 4 - there are some older hooks which I guess should either be re-reviewed, improved or discarded. Anyone else is free to get stuck in as I am going to do some article work for a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in DYK article

I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of James Craig Anderson and I noticed that the article has the words nigger and fuck written as n***** and f*** respectively. The words are in direct quotes. Should we apply WP:NOTCENSORED and write the full word, or leave the words censored? Thanks. (I'm asking here as more people watch this page, and I couldn't find the proper noticeboard) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source spells it with ****, so it should remain that way. The censorship originates elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but with different logic. Since its a quote it should say as is. (at most write a "sic" beside it if you want). Outisde quotes i dont see why not to write it out unless someone challenges its meaning and can prove altenratives.Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus brazenly disregarded

I see no checklists in use, which is a blatant breach of the "checklist" RfC consensus. It is reasonable to conclude that DYK promotions are not legitimate without the implementation of a checklist. I'm afraid that WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't hold any water—people had the chance to declare that, and did, but the !vote was some three-quarters in favour.

If DYK participants don't want to use a review checklist, they will need to launch another RfC to countermand the decision of the first one. Tony (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being "brazenly disregarded" Tony, the reason no checklist is currently being used is because I suggested we delay its implementation for a week or two, in this thread. Personally I think we could probably leave it for another week or so before trying one out because I have neither the time nor the energy to participate much ATM, but if others want to push ahead with it I won't stand in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that I don't have much confidence in the delaying tactics? Tony (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for the same reason I don't; there's no will to put DYK on a proper footing that might go some way towards justifying its main page presence. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the problem with DYK. If nothing's done (which will probably happen), then we'll see the problems we've always seen. If everything is implemented the detractors want, it' will be impossible to use and bureaucratized to death. Only one solution for all this. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either the present DYK slot is relabelled something like "Here's a few new articles that need some help", or to match what it says on the tin it truly becomes reader-oriented. But we all know that DYK will change nothing until it's forced to, on pain of death. Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not it's a good sign would depend on why they've stopped commenting. Discussions elsewhere would lead me to believe it's not because they feel DYK is now well on the right track. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(out) I asked people at this page over and over again for feedback concerning various aspects of how the template should be designed; I did this because, for some silly reason, I actually cared about making a template that would be useful to people. I usually got very little response. It seems everyone wants change to happen but few people want to lift a finger to help make it happen, or to even state clearly the details of how it should be done. Since people have taken their time giving me the feedback I asked for regarding various aspects of the template, I ended up taking my time making the template. Once you guys actually decide what you want the template to look like, I can make sure it's added to nominations. The options are all clearly spelled out for you (see [2], [3]). Or, if you guys can't make a decision about what the format of the template should be, you can always go ahead and open a new discussion or RfC regarding whether a review checklist template is needed in the nomination page at all (as opposed to a review checklist stored in the reviewing guidelines elsewhere, like what's done with WP:WIAFA; see proposal here). To be honest, I'm tired of the crap I've been getting from some people when I volunteer my free time to work on these issues, so I'm not going to go off and make some decision like this by myself just to let people give me more crap. I'm not putting any of this stuff into the nomination process until the community has made a decision on it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here are grateful for your work and sorry for the complaints aimed at you as a result of your work. Some people will not reply to your requests for feedback no matter how long you wait. How about a deadline, just a few days more, during which anybody who wants to advise you should do so? Sharktopus talk 04:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Rjanag, you have done fantastic work (pretty much all on your own) and it is working like a charm. Don't worry about the criticism, it is impossible to please everyone. Regarding the checklist, I think one of your horizontal ones would work best. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate - I suggested we delay implementation of the checklist because (a) there were a bunch of other changes made to the DYK nom process that had created a lot of confusion, which I felt needed some time to sort out, and (b) because I felt we could all use a break from the often acrimonious discussion that had gone on for a month or two prior. Things are going more smoothly at T:TDYK right now, so (a) has diminished as an issue. With regards to (b) I am still personally committed to the notion of at least trying out Rjanag's checklist(s), it's just a matter of the DYK community deciding when is the best time to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy-edit Haugtussa (song cycle)

I reviewed the article Haugtussa (song cycle) and think you still feel a lot that it is translated. I am not the right one, English-wise, to change that and hope for a volunteer or two ... for a good subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a whack. Have a look. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! You should be a co-author, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting quid pro quo

My article Nail Men was reviewed and promoted to prep before I did my quid pro quo review (I wasn't going to do it last night, I had been up for 26 hours and it would not have been responsible). I have now reviewed Barry Locke and am reporting it here in lieu of breaking into the closed template to add it there. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yngvadottir. I continue to be delighted and impressed by the articles you bring to DYK – Nail Men, Architecture of the Night, and so many more that really improved the encyclopedia. I need to get back to writing more, arguing less. Sharktopus talk 21:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can report a review the same way you'd make any normal comment during the nomination process (just by saying "Hey, I reviewed X"). It's not necessary to do it using the template; that template is just there to make it more convenient to add a review at the same time you nominate, if it happens that you've already done the review by then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, Rjanag, but the nomination was closed already. I think Yngvadottir could have put it on the nomination's talk page, which is why we made it its own template page anyways. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake; I didn't read the OP carefully. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I cause problems by reviewing after I nominate; in most cases the 5-day deadline means I don't have time to review an article first, I'm too busy fitting building my own article or expansion around the chaos of my off-wiki life '-) (And as I said, it would not have been responsible for me to review someone's article before getting some sleep.) I actually thought of using the nom. template's talkpage, but I wanted to be up-front and above-board about it, since it is a requirement. My fault, sorry, carry on :-) (And @ Sharktopus, thanks, eek. But Architecture of the Night took too damned long to write, so it was Jan Buijs actually featured in that DYK '-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, imo. Thanks to this discussion I now know where to put things that happen after the nom discussion was closed: on the nom's talk page! I was not aware of that, thanks for pointing it out, Rjanag. It's really great to see the complete process documented, thanks to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Man hook

As said before, Nail Men was promoted fast, now in q5. I saw the hook only now and think it's good but could be better.

  • ... that people in Berlin raised over a million gold marks for charity in World War I by hammering nails into a wooden statue of Hindenburg 12 metres (42 feet) high?
"Nail Men" seems too precious a term to be hidden as "wooden statue", even if the text describes it to certain extent. Also World War I without a link or separator made me see "I" as in "I see". This is invitation to the hook specialists. My humble approach:

Template:Did you know nominations/Vigneshwara Temple, Ozar

This article is requested for tomorrow. Can someone please take a look? There are 2 references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss...

… to come up with a hook for Numbers (software). Any suggestions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Alexander (Q1)

I would contend that the verb "co-open" is not well established in the language. I don't think anyone imagines every role in a restaurant to be undertaken by one person, so simply saying that she opened a restaurant would be sufficient. If not, "opened with Jill Ward" should avoid the neologism. Kevin McE (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. neologism avoided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John E Carroll (P4)

The claim that this man was the first to carry the nickname is based on one paragraph in a 35 paragraph story about Dustin Pedroia in a regional magazine. The sports journalist, one Tommy Craggs, is, I don't doubt, well qualified in his field, but is not a lexicographer, and the claim is one of many subjective comments in the article that are scarcely authoritative. Would we be willing to describe the politics of California as wackadoodle, or to attribute "an endless capacity for cultivating a sense of victimhood" as a characteristic of athletes, on the basis of such content in this article? Kevin McE (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's light-hearted and qualified with a "probably"...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably = more likely than not, more than 50% likelihood of being true; is this really sufficient evidence for a "probably"? Light hearted is no excuse for inaccuracy. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "may have been". Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn to queue 3 for the full story.

"... that Katy Perry's song "Circle the Drain" is reportedly about her former relationship with Travie McCoy?". Are we doing gossip in DYK now? Yomanganitalk 12:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that when singing "Circle the Drain" in a 2011 concert, Katy Perry was dressed in a catsuit and the stage was decorated with meat?
Better? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately the tabloid rumour version has made it onto the main page. Yomanganitalk 09:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An admin could still change it there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bacon (Prep 4)

HMS Richard Bacon in prep 4 has a hook and an alt. I'm not sure from looking at its DYK page what was supposed to be promoted. Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Richard Bacon. SL93 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no preference indicated, so I chose the hookier of the two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are TWO hooks for Richard Bacon on prep4 now. Pick one, please. --174.89.158.199 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A big ask

I've just nominated an article that would be good to run on 4 September, the first anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. I know, I'm cutting it really fine. But it's four months of solid work, so it would be nice if somebody could swiftly review it. There isn't much work in reviewing it, as the prose size of this list article is quite short (under 3000 bytes). A big ask - I know... Schwede66 05:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the running on 4 September. An anniversary is significant, a lot of work has been put into this list. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prep 4

See above. I think it is OK as it says "may have been" and that's all that is claimed. Yomanganitalk 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Class

Ok. First let me say I'm sorry for any headaches my students caused anyone this summer. I am planning to have my students contribute to psych-stubs again this semester. They mainly pick awful stubs and make them slightly less awful. Some students manage to elevate stubs significantly. I use the DYK guidelines as a goal for my students because they are achievable (even fro freshmen). As such I imagine some will want to submit their articles for DYK at some point. It'll still be a couple of months before they get to the point where they might be submitting, and I have made it a requirement that articles are copy-edited by other class members before any sort of nomination. Also, I will try to police them and when they nominate an article that clearly fails to meet DYK criteria I'll go ahead and review it with a fail (although I think it'd be problematic for me to pass articles). You can view details of the actual assignment on WP:SUP (or directly). I think DYK is a great program and a clever way to both encourage new editors and develop new content so please feel free to advise me on ways that I can help. Thanks! --MTHarden (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the notice, and DYK is glad to have people who are interested in psychology. I think it would be a good idea for students to be required to keep an eye on the nomination and address any concerns raised, as it would give them experience with a peer review process, which they would have to deal with before being published in a reputable journal. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Dalby

Can someone please delete this nomination. There's a dispute on the talkpage, that honestly I don't understand, about the hook and in deference to others I wrote the hook in such a way that it's vague. In rewriting per the reviewer's request, I'm afraid we're opening it up to edit warring, and frankly I'm not interested in dealing with that. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations aren't deleted. If you don't want to continue the nomination, you can leave a comment there stating that you withdraw the nomination, and someone will archive it afterwards. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I'll do that. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed it (it says I rejected it, but I wouldn't be so harsh, that's the template talking). Yomanganitalk 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed this; I thought it meant you'd rejected the request. Thanks for rejecting the submission. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QRpedia

The Wikimedia UK event to which the nomination for QRpedia ({{Did you know nominations/QRpedia}} takes place at 10am BST (just under 9.5 hours from when I type). As I'm just off to bed, can anyone help make sure it gets actioned for then, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on main page talk

Talk:Main Page#DYK: community consensus disregarded. Nobody seems to have mentioned it here, probably because they didn't think anybody here would be interested. Yomanganitalk 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Pops

Is it normal that an admin changed the hook for Bomb Pop without discussing it? SL93 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed as a dumb marketing promo. Bull. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit unusual for an item which has already been vetted as DYK to be suddenly changed to something which had not been vetted or mentioned by the process, especially in live mainspace. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The admin also said that it was only celebrated once although the 5 event books above prove otherwise. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just so happens that whoever vetted the thing vetted it badly. Wells Enterprises issues a press release on one year, and one year only. The masses of websites and books picked up on the press release. One of the books lists June holidays like: Yell Fudge at the Cobras in North America Day, Hug Your Cat Day, Cheer Coach Day, National Gardening Exercise Day, Ball Point Pen Day, Name Your Poison Day, Crowded Nest Awareness Day, The Wicket World of Croquet Day, and even Leon Day. Leon Day is six months to Noel, Christmas. It's called "lets use Google to fill up our book." There is no evidence that it happened any more than once. None of these books provide squat for insight or references into the topic. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. You should have posted that before pissing me off. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read the books that you claim to cite. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the books. I just didn't know about the yearly press release. You should not make accusations without proof. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without proof that the holiday existed in some sort of substantial way, even as just a giveaway to residents of LeMars, Indiana, you shouldn't have implied that it did exist in any greater way, let alone taken that assertion to DYK's nominations page. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the books were proof. You shouldn't change any DYK hooks without discussing it first. LeMars is in Iowa. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins have the right to change hooks without prior discussion or notification. However, in some cases another admin will disagree and revert the change (see below section). In those cases, there should be a discussion; if the first admin reverts it again, that would be wheelwarring, which is not allowed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with an administrator making any change intended to protect the pedia, but this seems like a weakness in the review process, doesn't it? If a hook is so inappropriate it could be pulled off the live mainpage by any admin, how did such a hook pass the vetting process? It sat in the queue for half a day before going live, without any comment, so why wasn't it caught there? BusterD (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is considered advertising is different for everyone. The admin who changed the hook is not a DYK regular, and as such would not have checked the queues. The reviewer did not see any problems nor did I (who brought it to prep). The admin who moved it from prep to queue probably did not either. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Richard Bacon

The DYK hook for HMS Richard Bacon is apparently deliberately misleading, making it sound like a man, as opposed to the boat named for him. Why? Is today the equivalent of April Fool's Day in some other country? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously designed to be misleading - otherwise there would be no objection to the adding of HMS. The purpose is to hook the reader and I guess that might be a successful ploy, but even if not, it isn't really going to do any harm, is it? It is italicised after all, so it does make a concession to the correct formatting (we don't italicise men's names). I think "World Wars" should be capitalised though as it refers to WWI and WW2 which are proper nouns rather than the concept of world wars in general. Yomanganitalk 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good to see the capitalization changed. But not everyone is familiar with the conventions of italicizing boat names. Titanic is as famous as anything in this world, so something like that, the Lusitania, no prob. Or the Disney Dream, no prob, it's obvious the name of something. But when it's a human name, the first instinct is to go with the article being a human. Especially when there's no context. If I had never heard about the Titanic, but I read a hook saying it sank, it had 50 decks, it was featured in a movie, that would hint "gee, it must be a boat". Nothing here does. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A great hook that would be ruined by the inclusion of HMS. violet/riga [talk] 02:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be ruined? Because it would make sense? -- Zanimum (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense as is due to the italics. HMS would be redundant and ruin the hookiness of it; pretty much anything else that is usually italicized (book, album, film) would not make sense in that sentence, so a boat is implied. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ruined because the whole point of the hook is the deliberate ambiguity. Far more people will have looked at the article because of the way it which it was written. violet/riga [talk] 15:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Preps

I think that the instructions for the promotion of preps should be clarified, as I have seen administrators sometimes promoting prep 1 when it is second or third in line. When we have articles set for a specific date or time, that can mess things up a bit. I have two suggestions:

  1. Clearer instructions for promoting preps, or better socialization of the exiting rules.
  2. Different names for the preps, which do not have an alpha-numeric order. For example, Wind Air, Earth, Fire, Water or something of the same ilk.

Any thoughts? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Air, Earth, Fire and Water. The suggestion is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup in prep 1

... that GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup advertises its food delivery services as free, but has been sued for alledgedly charging a customer an extra dollar?
Perhaps? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good hook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt hook is also inappropriate. It gives undue emphasis to an unproven claim that the company is engaged in fraud. The referenced lawsuit was filed a couple weeks ago and has not yet been answered in court. It was filed by a single customer who, according to the source, "claims he was charged a dollar more for fettucini alfredo from Pompei Pizza." It would be grossly unfair to feature such an unproven allegation of fraud on the Main Page where it is based on one customer alleging he was overcharged by one dollar. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm ... "... that Grub Hub was named by Inc Magazine as one of the fastest growing private companies in America in 2010?";

"... that Grub Hub lets users search for the closest source of pad thai using GPS? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So famous software can never lead?

Reading over the rules, it appears that commercial software could never get the lead position in DYK. Screen shots of commercial software are always fair use, so that's that. Seems wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a DYK rule. Fair use images aren't allowed anywhere on the main page.
Secondly, there is no rule saying that hooks about commercial software can't be in the DYK lead spot if they're illustrated with a picture that's freely available. (That is to say, not necessarily a picture of the software itself, but some other relevant picture if such a thing exists.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or notable open-source software... Although a screenshot would probably not be interesting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lavarnway (queue 3)

What on Earth are "tools of ignorance"? Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we actually having odd phrases introduced into articles simply so that they can be cited in a DYK hook now? This seems to be a strange journalistic reference to the simple fact that he is a catcher. Kevin McE (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklists added into nomination template

I added the checklists to the nomination template so they are automatically placed into new nominations, starting now. They don't actually appear until a review starts (i.e., after someone "checks off" at least one item), which I figured would help make it easier to notice unreviewed noms.

For those of you following the discussion at home, I went with the signatures only version of the template (although if you're sharp, it's still actually possible to use the signatures + doodads version by simply signing off with {{subst:DYKY}} instead of ~~~).

To be honest, the recent discussion at Talk:Main Page#DYK: community consensus disregarded leaves me with the impression that "demand" for checklists is not as strong as some people think it is and it would be worthwhile to reconsider whether they're even needed. But since at least a vocal minority is insisting on them, here they are for now. I hope everyone's ready for another big pile of people complaining about how complicated DYK is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first nom posted after that is Template:Did you know nominations/Coventry Cross (monument). I took the liberty of starting the review so you guys can have an example of how it should work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm sure it will come in handy for some people, presumably the intention is not to make the use of the checklist template mandatory for reviewers? That is to say, presumably there will be no objections to reviewers removing the template from nominations if they wish approach the review in a different way? Whatever your opinion on the outcome and validity of the RFC vote (and the subsequent accusations of breaches of community consensus) with regard to the checklist the matter of any checklist template was clearly and explicitly excluded from the RFC proposals: The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether: ... a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below. Yomanganitalk 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have never thought a single template should be mandatory (see e.g. User talk:Gatoclass#Back to the review checklist, where my suggestion was basically not to have a review template at all but just to put this in the editnotice) but I think I'm in the minority, and I have a bunch of people breathing down my neck wanting something to be automatically included, so that's what I did. It's up to everyone else to decide whether it should be mandatory. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add one to your minority. Yomanganitalk 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is article expansion considered an improvement as far as DYK is concerned?

Trolling as usual; no intent to say anything constructive, just an attempt to waste people's time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My question is prompted by having watched for the umpteenth time the 1946 film version of Great Expectations, for which the plot section in the Wikipedia article had been tagged since December 2009 as being too long and/or detailed. I edited it to fit the 3–4 paragraph guideline for that type of article, so the disfiguring tag could reasonably be removed. But it raised the question in my mind; for older articles especially it may well be the case that they are best improved by reducing their size, not by increasing it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is because DYK is not about improvement, it's about new content. None of the DYK rules specify that articles have to be improved to be eligible. Articles that are improved without necessarily having been expanded are more relevant for WP:GAN. Likewise, DYK is mainly geared towards new and short articles; if someone wants to improve an older article, they're better off setting their sights on GAN or FAC (and yet the "Wikipedia-needs-improved-not-expanded" crowd is still not satisfied with having two article quality projects, and wants to turn DYK into one too). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is indeed simple, but it's inconsistent with the very clear statement on the DYK main page: "This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles". Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence right before that says "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles." Nothing about improvement. Expansion often involves improvement, and vice versa, but not necessarily; and the DYK main page doesn't ever say that the project aims to encourage every kind of article improvement there is. (For comparison: FA doesn't exist to encourage people to scripts to add, say, persondata to the bottom of biographies, but that's still article improvement; and I don't see anyone going to FA complaining that "I added persondata and improved the article, why can't I get an FA"). Essentially, it seems that you're saying that because DYK doesn't encourage the kind of improvement you just did (cleaning up a plot summary), it must not be encouraging any improvement at all. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may waffle as much as you like, but it's very clear that you're in denial. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=448306278"